Memeorandum

November 30, 2012

Most Misleading Headline Ever?

In their ongoing effort to persuade the public to quit whinging about higher taxes the Dead Tree NY Times delivers a misleading headline for the record books:

Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than In The Reagan 80's

The text goes on to compare the total Federal, state and local tax burden in 1980 with that of 2010, which prompts a question - when did Reagan take office and launch his first round of tax cuts? 1981, yes? Surely the Times editors remember the timing of the Descent of Darkness.

So maybe a better headline would be "Taxes Lower than in the Carter Era", which would deliver a less surprising message and make a less compelling case that we are currently under-taxed.

I infer that the Times editors have realized their problem. Online, the current headline is:

Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in 1980

No kidding - most face a lower burden than in 1980, when everyone felt over-taxed. We can spot the evolution (or is it intelligent design?) of their headline by way of the website URL (my emphasis):

ERRATA: The CBO calculates the total Federal tax burden, including imputed corporate taxes. For the three lower quintiles of earners the Reagan years were not so great, tax-wise - the cut in the Federal income tax was roughly offset by the increase in the Social Security tax.

Finding the total Federal, state and local burden back to 1980 has me stumped just now, although this Tax Foundation report reaches back to 1991.

Misleading-- TomM stop be polite (even snarkily) to that rag you read daily. It's an outright LIE. (h/t GUS) The fact that the NYT online headline is different proves that it's a lie. These Obamaniac cocksuckers know that we're in a recession that started sometime in the 3rd QTR, they know the debt train is coming to a stop (Abrupt I hope) and the welfare promises they made to the 47% have fallen apart (just like in Greece and Spain.) So they are wildly pointing squirrel-- this time at Reagan. What a bunch of lying scum they all are, Obama, the Dems, the Legacy Media all of them. Hit the gas-- let's go over the cliff, and NO MORE DEBT. Period.

Part of what makes the dim Dems so cocky on this cliff as Geithner showed yesterday is their belief that the media will continue to cover for them.

Many with a salary have no feel for how the economy is doing until they lose their job. Physician bil on salary with a hospital quizzes me and his business owner patients to get a feel for how economy is doing.

RSE-- I just can't help the coarse language sometimes. The younguns here think I'm rather ...ehr.. quaint. But the simple truth here is that the Media/Dem team is as I described them. Don't engage them; don't play in their make believe world. They are as clueless as BuBu, but much more power hungry and greedy than cute little BuBu. NO MORE DEBT. Just don't raise the limit, let the Fed Gov't get by on 2.8TRILLION/year. That's plenty. That's it. Let Obama figure out the only way he gets more money for the 47% is to help the economy grow. Is this the best way for the nation. Of course not. But the Obamaniacs don't have the nation's best interests at heart-- they want to bust the joint out as long as it enhances their power. That's why they are cocksuckers.

This would give the Senate a stark choice. The Senate GOP should agree not to filibuster the Kabuki Bill if the Dems agree not to filibuster the Necessary Bill and also agree not not repeal the fiibuster rule in the future.

The Senators can then vote on both the Kabuki Bill and the Necessary Bill.

I would preface the abstention with a crystal clear forecast that passage of the Kabuki Bill will result in a sharp increase in suffering due to underemployment during the Obama Depression and that passage will insure the continuance of the Obama Depression through the end of his reign of incompetency.

Debt at the end of WW2 was about 130% of GDP and was largely paid down.
$16Trillion represents about 110% of current GDP, so it could possibly be paid down with sufficient economic growth.
It's the extra $20 trillion over the next 20 years that will be a little tough to handle. :)

It is symptomatic of the national condition of the United States that the worst humiliation ever suffered by it as a nation, and by a US president personally, passed almost without comment last week. I refer to the November 20 announcement at a summit meeting in Phnom Penh that 15 Asian nations, comprising half the world’s population, would form a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership excluding the United States.

President Barack Obama attended the summit to sell a US-based Trans-Pacific Partnership excluding China. He didn’t. The American led-partnership became a party to which no-one came.

Instead, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, plus China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, will form a club and leave out the United States.

RickB-- I leave the parliamentary tricks to shrewder minds then mine. The Bottomline is don't engage the Obamaniacs, they are incompetent and dishonest. The House should pass its Budget, let the Kabuki begin, but don't increase the debt limit until the Obamaniacs make a real deal. That will be after Geithner's blown out of there.

"So the President made clear that he is not wedded to every detail of his plan," said Carney. "The President has also made categorically and abundantly clear that he will not sign an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for top earners. It’s bad economic policy and we cannot afford it. He will not sign that."

According to official calculations made by the White House Office of Management and Budget that go back to 1930, Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt are the only two presidents who have served in four fiscal years when federal spending exceeded 24 percent of GDP. Roosevelt did so in 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 (when he died in office). Obama did so in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Since 1930, according to the White House, there has been only one year when federal tax revenues went as high as 20 percent of GDP. That was 2000, when revenues were 20.6 percent of GDP.

No matter what the federal income tax rates have been, at no time since 1930 has the federal government been able to collect as much as 21 percent of GDP in taxes.

To balance the budget at a level of spending higher than 20.6 percent of GDP would require an historically unprecedented level of taxation.

The federal government taxes away the income of Americans through a system of progressive tax rates, designed to take larger and larger shares of a person's earnings as the person make more money.

this a fraud. we pay more in taxes now then ever. the politicans have so many more ways to confiscate the workers income then in the eighties. sales taxes, taxes on your utility bills, sewer tax, water bill,just about any human activity has a politican's cost to it.

Federal spending, meanwhile, grew faster than the economy over the last decade — particularly during the recession. To pay those bills, the government borrowed more money than it collected in income taxes in each of the last three fiscal years, something it had not done in even a single year since World War II, federal data show.

The emphasis is clearly mine, the obscurantism is all New York Times. I almost bolded "those bills" too, but never mind. Let's cue up Forbes (from 1929 through 2011):

Dems love to talk about Clinton-era tax rates. When it comes to looking at how we actually arrived at that fabled Clinton "surplus," not so much.

While the Obama regime trots out the misleading headlines again and again that coal powered power plants are bad:

"Countries Worldwide Propose to Build 1,200 New Coal Plants"

"While the war on coal is working, reducing coal generation and consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions here in the United States, many world economies are looking towards coal for future generation needs."

Why is the Obama regime trying to destroy our electrical producing capacity and increase the cost of almost everything in the USA?
--------------------------------------------
"It is symptomatic of the national condition of the United States that the worst humiliation ever suffered by it as a nation"

is an interesting story. Late in the post a student attending basically states it is now unacceptable to see yourself as an individual and not just part of a System. That is the shorthand for that "webs of relationships" language.

He did real damage to the Waters Foundation's insistence to a Winston-Salem school board that Systems Thinking is in fact not socialistic.

I had already been contacted by an outraged W-S parent on the numerous lies she had found in the presentation already.

At the November 29, 2012, Preliminary Injunction hearing in Sibley vs. Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot – a class action lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against the three District of Columbia Electors of the so-called Electoral College – Barack Hussein Obama, II, refused to produce his original Short-Form “Certificate of Live Birth” and his original Long-Form “Certificate of Live Birth”. These documents are the sole evidence that Mr. Obama has proffered to the American People to establish his Article II, §1, eligibility for the Office of President. I had subpoenaed those documents for the hearing. As a result, I today filed my Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause Why Barack Hussein Obama, II, Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court. Judge Mott has reserved decision on that motion pending a response by the Defendants.

What exactly is the objection to producing your original birth certificates when subpoenaed? No objection was filed by Mr. Obama or his attorneys. He simply chose to ignore a lawful court process. Such disdain and disregard of the rule of law is appalling from one who – pursuant to Article II, §1 – has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Everyone else in these United States has to follow the law and prove -- as required by 8 USCS § 1324a -- that they are legally entitled to work before beginning a job. Why does Mr. Obama believe he is above that law and can ignore it? - http://amoprobos.blogspot.co.uk"

"taxes on your utility bills, sewer tax, water bill,just about any human activity has a politican's cost to it."

Interesting point. I wonder what the numbers would look like if they included government imposed fees & surcharges etc. A big chunk of a lot of folks' utility bills go to government mandated funds, and per GasPriceWatch

[A]s of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel.

It's almost like there's a sales tax on taxes.... Oddly enough, Democrats don't like to talk about how regressive most of their pet sin taxes are. Apparently, the new sin fairness tax on wealth will right all wrongs. Reminds me of the Chicago real estate racket, where slumlord Friends of Barack got subsidies for building low income housing, whose residents then got subsidized rents.

Subsidies are investments, and lower tax rates are "expenditures." It's quite brilliant, really, as an exercise in propaganda. Democrats may not understand basic economics, but they sure know their money and their marks.

I'm not even sure the study counted taxes on business (other than sales taxes). It's hard to tell from the article, but it does not appear that it did. Another newsflash for the Times: "Businesses" don't pay taxes, people do, whether they know it or not. They pay them through higher prices, lower wages, lower after-tax income.

Interesting point. I wonder what the numbers would look like if they included government imposed fees & surcharges etc.

And don't forget the $1 trillion in the cost of regulatory complinace to the economy. Those are government policies that are paid for directly by the population directly, but those costs are only incured due to government mandate.

Politico really had to spin the embarrassment at the climate conference.

"But by later afternoon, Singh and Wen had both left the convention center where the conference was being held —- possibly because the talks seemed to be heading towards a dead-end. Administration sources reported that they were told the Indian delegation was headed for the airport."...."But it turned out that the leaders were actually meeting together."

So Politico calls it President Obama's Dramatic Climate Meet!

"President Barack Obama burst into a meeting of Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders to try and reach a climate agreement in late Friday negotiations in Copenhagen."

World leaders have Obama's number. No one wants to hang out with a loser like Obama.I'm just waiting for the next downgrade of our country.I agree with Charles Krauthammer today. Repubs should just walk away. Take a tip from Tip O'Neill pass workable legislation. If Dems and dim senators block it put the onus on them.

Liberals have an interesting and very selective pathology when it comes to their hatred and envy of the "rich." They idolize very rich white men like Ted Kennedy--who inherited his wealth from his father, who made his money from bootlegging and murder and was a Nazi sympathizer and then sheltered that dirty money in a tax free haven. Or Harry Reid, who has parlayed a low six figure senate salary into multi-millions by skimming off the top of government revenue that could have gone to the poor, but went into his tax-sheltered trusts instead. Or John Kerry, who arrived at his tax-sheltered wealth by marrying the widow of a rich Republican, and is too selfish to even pay taxes on his yacht. Or George Soros, who made his billions by being a Nazi collaborator, manipulating currencies, and bilking poor widows out of their pensions.

You would think that Liberals like bubu would direct at least some of their hate and envy toward such blood-sucking monsters like Kennedy, Reid, Kerry and Soros, but instead they are willing slaves to such men. Instead they've sold their liberty to these men in exchange for a free phone and a pitiable existence on the Democrat plantation. And they are so mind-numbingly stupid that they don't see that every time they vote to keep those super rich, white, blood-sucking men in office they are not only ratcheting the serfs' collars tighter around their own necks, but they are helping to perpetuate they very system they purport to despise.

OK, I'm confused. JMH's Fed/GDP plot climbs steadily while the tax revenue is fairly constant around 18 percent. There have to be some other contributions besides the continuing/climbing borrowing. Is it SS, etc.?

derwill, if John Gotti had come out for universal health care and higher taxes on the rich, the Dems would have run him for Senate in New York instead of prosecuting him for being a murderous mafia don.

MT, that chart is total government spending - federal, state, and local. Federal tax revenue has been fairly constant (since the 1930s, because who would want to change any part of the economic conditions of the 1930s?)

And once the blood-sucking Liberal Oligarchs like Kennedy, Reid, Kerry and Soros are firmly in control of world power and money, they'll no longer need the useful idiots. And we all know what happens to unneeded people in totalitarian socialist states

The 2nd American Revolution needs to start by eliminating the lying, partisan liberal hacks who continue to lie, obfuscate, misinform, maleducate and indoctrinate Americans through their dominance of the MFM, academia, Hollywood, and gov't bureaucracies.

Instead they've sold their liberty to these men in exchange for a free phone

Speaking of which, you know why they hate Republicans? Because we all got tremendously rich selling things people don't even need at giant profit margins that really benefit only our investors and a small number of employees who have pricey elite college educations, while gutting American manufacturing by outsourcing and offshoring production to China.

I really think Obamaoverplayed his hand by sending Geithner up to the Hill with his insulting solution. McConnell and Boehner are realizing to their chagrin how incredibly lawless Obama and his boys are. I say call Obama's bluff. You know he hates when you do that. Remember how he excoriated Eric Cantor? It just makes his opponents stronger when he singles them out.The key here is to make Obama own it. Put him on the defensive. That's why "you didn't build that" was a powerful tool to use against him. Use the expression "spread the wealth around". Name names and say, for example Speilberg will pay more, Kerry will pay more, Ron Howard and Tom Hanks are going to pay more John Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel will pay more. Have repubs go on the view and ask Whoopi how she feels about paying more taxes. Then be bold and say "What is your plan to get out of it?"

Is there a third party besides the Libertarian and Constitution parties that is conservative and not wacky?

After Ross Perot scared the beejeezus out of the Ruling Class Elites, the Democrats and Republicans colluded to build such insurmountable barriers-to-entry in terms of finances, staff, state election rules and media control, that the only way to get a foot onto the political stage is by taking over one of the existing 2 parties.

The only other tactic I can think of is for a 3rd party to concentrate all its resources on a few swing states such as Ohio. (Similar to what George Wallace tried in 1968) Then, use this kingmaker status to blackmail one or both of the candidates into publicly adopting your platform.

Imagine if a 3rd Party running on a "no new taxes" or "no amnesty" platform was polling 5% in Ohio or Florida late last October.

Of course, the deal would probably go out the window as soon as the election was over.

TK;
Put down and post what you want. People can cruise ahead if they don't want to read it. There is a small part of me that laughs every time because this drip by drip diminuation of Obama will ultimately reveal to all what a small man he is. He has a dysfunctional past. He feels he has owned it in his Ayers "ghost-written" books. His sense of self is narcissistic and vague at the same time. He will always be uncomfortable in his own skin because in his heart he knows he is nothing short of a full-out con man. The Clintons are and will always be grifters. I mean look at Hil's brothers. But Obama is and will always be a phony. He knows it and we know it The telltale attribute is that inorder to win an election he must demonize and trash his opponents. It is his signature move and device.

I hope you enjoy them, fdcol63. I've been watching him all morning (those clips in that order). I haven't felt this good since the election. I know a lot of people linked the first clip on Election Night, but the second two are important as well.

TK:
In all humility I must say that in your disappointment , you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Republican party still has a lot of life,but does desperately need better candidates. Some House seats were not even contested.As for the Presidential candidate, the dems are basically full of hubris and grandiose futuristic ideas. They think they have a mandate. They do not. I saw up close on election day, many people disgusted with Obama and also saw many Romney voters that didn't vote for Mandel for Senate. We need to cajole people and convince them how important their vote is in each and every election. With perseverance ,we will succeed again.

Porch, I need some encouragement right now. LOL I've been in a funk since the election, mired in pessimism for this country.

If I had no other family obligations besides my wife and son, we'd be making plans to move somewhere else ASAP, probably to New Zealand.

In many ways, NZ is the same kind of socialist hell that I'd be fleeing from, but it's REMOTE and able to control its borders in ways that the US can't .... and the immigration that NZ is currently experiencing from those escaping the socialist hells of the UK, EU, and other places in the Anglosphere will ultimately change NZ culture for the better, IMHO.

--And once the blood-sucking Liberal Oligarchs like Kennedy, Reid, Kerry and Soros are firmly in control of world power and money, they'll no longer need the useful idiots. And we all know what happens to unneeded people in totalitarian socialist states--

So true, Free State Paul. It wasn't the true counter-revolutionaries who ended up in Stalin's Gulag--those guys either all went down fighting in the early years of the Bolshevick revolution or they escaped to the West and freedom via China. No, the prisoners who ended up slaving in the mines in Siberia were at first the higher level useful idiots, like college professors, and scientists and intellectuals, and once those guys were all eliminated, then they came for the peon-level useful idiots like Bubu, who got turned in to the KGB for "crimes against the people" by their neighbors, who envied them for their prettier wife, or their warmer coat, or who just decided it was better to do unto them before they could be done into.

But the biggest irony found in this history lesson is that there was a saying in the Gulag mines, uttered by those Bubu-like useful idiots: "If only Stalin knew." See, they actually believed that if their Dear Leader, good ol' Uncle Joe, knew the real truth of their innocence such a terrible faith would never have befallen them. Even a death sentence of starvation, bitter cold and depravation in the Siberian mines didn't wise them up. They were idiots all the way up to the bitter end.